G.R. No. L-23383 January 28, 1971
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR NATURALIZATION OF YAO MUN TEK. YAO MUN TEK, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

Petitioner Yao Mun Tek filed his application for naturalization in 1946. The notice of hearing was published only once in the Official Gazette, contrary to the legal requirement of publication once a week for three consecutive weeks. Furthermore, the published and posted notice omitted several material allegations from the petition itself. During the hearing, petitioner moved to substitute his original character witness, Dr. Albino Sycip, with Atty. Marcelo P. Karaan, on the ground of Dr. Sycip’s unavailability. This substitution was granted without amending the petition to include the new witness, without the new witness executing a supporting affidavit, and without republication of the amended petition.
The Court of First Instance initially granted the petition in 1951. In 1953, the court allowed petitioner to take his oath of allegiance. Petitioner took his oath on the same day the order was issued, without waiting for the 30-day period for the Solicitor General to appeal from receipt of the order. Years later, in 1963, the Solicitor General filed a petition to nullify the naturalization grant and cancel the certificate. The lower court granted this petition in 1964, prompting petitioner’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court correctly nullified the grant of naturalization and cancelled the certificate of naturalization issued to Yao Mun Tek.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The naturalization proceedings were fatally defective from the outset. The law mandates strict and mandatory compliance with procedural requirements for naturalization, which are jurisdictional. First, the publication of the petition notice only once in the Official Gazette violated the requirement for publication once a week for three consecutive weeks. This defect alone is sufficient to void the proceedings, as it deprives the public and the state of proper notice to investigate the applicant’s qualifications.
Second, the substitution of the character witness was procedurally invalid. The new witness, Atty. Karaan, did not execute an affidavit of good character for the petitioner, nor was the petition amended to list him as a witness. Crucially, no republication of the amended petition was made. This violated the requirement that the petition and the affidavits of credible witnesses must be published to afford proper scrutiny. Third, the oath of allegiance taken by petitioner was null and void because it was administered before the order allowing him to take the oath became final. Petitioner took his oath immediately, without waiting for the expiration of the 30-day period granted to the government to appeal, thereby violating the finality requirement under Republic Act No. 530 . These cumulative jurisdictional flaws rendered the entire naturalization process void ab initio.